ParkingTheBus

I hear a lot of people who claim that riding on rural roads aren't safe at all for cyclists... I have to say that I strongly disagree.

I live in the suburbs, filled with 8 lane roadways and cars whizzing by at 70-80 km/hr. There's often more cars and dangerous objects such as potholes. More cars = more angry people = more close passing.

I almost always choose to go for rides on less busy country roads. Luckily, a 5 minute ride gets me into the country where I feel much safer... Less traffic and I find the drivers who I do encounter are generally very courteous and give me plenty of room when passing.

Machka 

Not sure who is saying this ...

chasm54

The UK stats - I haven't bothered to look up those relating to other countries - indicate that the greatest number of cyclist deaths per mile travelled occur on rural "A" roads, not on city streets. It makes sense when you think about it, because those roads in the UK are typically not that wide, sometimes have poor sightlines, and traffic is moving pretty fast.

However, the good news is that cycling is remarkably safe. Agiain in the UK, which is much less safe than the Benelux and Scandanavian countries, there is one cyclist death for roughly every 28 MILLION miles cycled, according to Department of Transport stats. Marginally safer than walking a similar distance, in fact. So, be reassured.

now, perhaps the mods might take this to A&S, where it belongs?

datlas 

Actually suburban riding is likely most dangerous. Urban is in second place. Rural (assuming back roads and not state highways) likely are safest. But too many other variables involved to generalize.

rpenmanparker 

Speak for yourself. This is the 41!

datlas 

True. But on further reflection, I would say that riding on the MUP is the most dangerous in terms of crash risk.

svtmike

Which is why you should ride the MUP at 30mph -- to minimize the time spent in the high risk zone.

10 Wheels

Welcome to A & S from road.

gios

I ride where there are witnesses. When that guy / gal buzzes by close to you, to me if there wasn't a car behind them, or oncoming, they would sure as s*it hit you with their mirror or worse send you flying to the pavement.

chasm54

Paranoid, much? Most drivers are trying not to run into you.

gios

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me. .....

The ******** are in the minority, but I recognize when they go out of their way to get close.

Todzilla

I've assumed, correctly or not, that accidents are more frequent and less fatal in urban areas, as opposed to rural, where they're less frequent but more deadly.

FWIW, my three accidents were in small towns (two right hooks) and suburbia (one left turn into my path).

Marcus_Ti

Would also depend on the psychology of the Department of Roads. Here in the US midwest, it is the inverse.

Country roads tend to be straight as an arrow and follow compass points. Sightlines thus aren't much of a problem ever as the road layout is indifferent to topography and all roads meet at 90* angles out in the country. Whereas residentials are as windy as they get with bad sightlines galore. This also tends to increase the "I can handle it" mental-train-wreck-of-reasoning of texting while driving here in the USA: people think that they can handle distracted driving on a straight non-technical road.

CrankyOne

IIRC, for motor vehicle crashes, rural roads are the most dangerous by a significant bit. Then exurban, then suburban, then urban, and then the safest, again by a significant bit, interstates. On a per mile basis riding a bicycle in the U.S. is about 4 to 6 times as dangerous as driving a car but I've no idea if this translates to road types or not.

Than again, all of these are significantly more dangerous than anywhere in Europe.

chasm54

Good point, context matters. Most European rural roads pre-date the automobile by several hundred years and are anything but indifferent to topography.

ParkingTheBus

Well maybe I was wrong? On 3 seperate occasions, I was buzzed today on rural roads. One was by some idiot on a motorcycle who blew past me at close to 100 km/hr

It's very discouraging... No matter what routes I take it seems like I always encounter drivers like this. I'm seriously considering quitting road cycling and just sticking to the mountain bike. For the sake of my life.

Marcus_Ti

Most European roads period. The city roads are frequently widened medieval alleyways. Only due the 2nd war demolishing most of the urban centers did they get redone into less messy messes.

Chris516

I agree that riding on rural roads, as opposed to suburbia and city. Is not safe. I did a metric century today in West Virginia. Part of the route was on two-lane rural roads, and part of the route was was on state roads that were four-lane divided highways(no higher than 45mph). More than once I was passed extremely closely by motorists' that were oblivious to/ignorant to, the state's 'close passing' law. There was even one motorist who had ample opportunity to pass. But chose to be a pain in the backside. Courtesy of his horn.

gregf83 

Safety likely depends on where you ride. I feel very safe riding rural roads around Vancouver. Perhaps West Virginia is not as accommodating of cyclists.

chasm54

"Less messy messes"? Umm, OK. I think most of us over here might say "less charming and historically interesting".

Anyway, it is arguable that narrow twisting city streets contribute to cycling safety. It's impossible to drive fast in those environments.

mconlonx

Most drivers are trying not to run into me, but if I ride like they are, I'm generally a safer rider.

I've done urban and rural commutes. Urban feels safer because speeds are lower and drivers generally know how to act around cyclists because there are a bunch of riders in the city. Rurally speaking, there just aren't enough riders for drivers to know how to accommodate them on a regular basis, so chances that a driver will do something bone-headed or unintentionally dangerous seems higher.

Marcus_Ti

Very true all around.

Also In the EU (and lots of other places)...narrow twisty streets really are frighteningly narrow (wide enough for a sidewalk and a Smart Car). Here in the USA, the narrowest you'll ever see a street is still 5 meters wide...which is still wide enough for two SUVs driving in opposite directions (and probably twice+ as wide as an EU narrow street).

Funny you feel that way.

Higher urban volume means a ton more idiots who are distracted driving. Every day on my 10km urban commute I see dozens of moving violations, and virtually every driver also has a phone glued to their hands either talking or texting. Rural roads, less people but fewer intersections and people watch when entering/exiting roads. I remember a case a few years ago where a 3meter MUT (in place of a traditional sidewalk) followed a 4-lane arterial here in Lincoln bordering a minor mall parking lot. Guy was riding a bike along it. I'm driving and rack my neck when I hear tires squeal-see a sports car burn rubber and do a donut in the mall parking lot, the sports car blazes at 30+mph across the lot into the driveway of the mall where the guy on the bike was riding ATM....guy on the bike was T-boned and thrown into the arterial 20+ feet. Idiot in the sports car didn't look or care about anyone other than himself and his ego.

Chris516

It always depends on where a cyclist rides.

Here is a story link about when the West Virginia legislature passed their 'close passing' law last year:Charleston Gazette-Mail | New law requires W.Va. drivers to give bicycles three feet of space

Seattle Forrest

Your title is rural versus urban riding but then you're complaining about suburban riding. There's a world of difference between the two.

Leebo

Per mile basis? Gong to take me a while pedaling to get to my 20,000 + miles I drive every year. I would say bike riding is much safer than driving a car. Would love to see a stat not on miles but say hours of travel per year. Comparing a per mile basis of car to bike is not great stats.